1 2026:CGHC:5485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2128 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On : 12.01.2026 J udgment Delivered On : _31.01.2026 Jugnu Kumar Asna S/o Late Shri Nityaranjan Asna, Aged About 46 Years, Presently Posted as Assistant Grade-III at the, 50 Bed Hospital, Kamleshwar, Mainpat District Surguja, R/o Village- Narmadapur, Post- Soor, Police Station Sitapur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director, Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 4 - Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the annual increment to the petitioner from date he is entitle under scheme of state government; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities CMHO, Surguja to take a decision on the pending representation by keeping in mind the circular dated 28.11.2011 & the order dated 05.10.2012 issued by the Deputy Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh; 3 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities make the payment of all the arrears of payment which are due for not granting of annual increment to the petitioner along with the interest; 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III by the CMHO, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgah (respondent No.4) on compassionate grounds vide order dated 10.10.2008. He would further submit that the petitioner was granted a pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/-. He would also submit that though the petitioner has completed a substantial period of service, but till date, not a single increment has been granted to him. He would also submit that in the order of appointment, the increment is specifically mentioned. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner could not pass the Hindi typing examination within a period of two years from the date of appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner does not hold the requisite qualification of Assistant Grade-III as per the Circular dated 28.11.2011, therefore, no increment has been granted to the 4 petitioner. In view of the above, learned counsel for the State submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on compassionate grounds vide order dated 10.10.2008. The only condition appended to the order of appointment was that the petitioner had to pass the Hindi typing examination within a period of two years. The pay scale of the petitioner was Rs. 3050- 75-3950-80-4590/-. The petitioner was entitled to get an increment of Rs. 75/- from the initial date of appointment. The order which was passed in favour of the petitioner has not been modified by any of the authorities and thus, the authorities ought to have granted the annual increment to the petitioner from 10.10.2008. With regard to the Circular dated 28.11.2011 relied upon by learned counsel for the State, it was issued much after the date of appointment of the petitioner, therefore, it would not attract in the case of the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was duly appointed on compassionate grounds at a pay scale of Rs. 3050- 75-3950-80-4590/-, which expressly stipulates the rate of increment, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities have committed a grave injustice against the petitioner by withholding the annual increment. 7. In the matter of Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and Others 5 Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a government servant is granted the annual increment on the basis of his good conduct while rendering one year service. Increments are given annually to officers with good conduct unless such increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or linked with efficiency. 8. Furthermore, in the matter of Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 411, the following was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 19, 20 & 21 : 19. The Allahabad High Court in Nand Vijay Singh [Nand Vijay Singh v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1090] while dealing with the same issue has observed and held in para 24 as under : (SCC OnLine All) “24. Law is settled that where entitlement to receive a benefit crystallises in law its denial would be arbitrary unless it is for a valid reason. The only reason for denying benefit of increment, culled out from the scheme is that the central government servant is not holding the post on the day when the increment becomes payable. This cannot be a valid ground for denying increment since the day following the date on which increment is earned only serves the purpose of ensuring completion of a year's service with good conduct and no other purpose can be culled out for it. The concept of day following which the increment is earned has otherwise no purpose to achieve. In isolation of the purpose it serves the fixation of day 6 succeeding the date of entitlement has no intelligible differentia nor any object is to be achieved by it. The central government servant retiring on 30th June has already completed a year of service and the increment has been earned provided his conduct was good. It would thus be wholly arbitrary if the increment earned by the central government employee on the basis of his good conduct for a year is denied only on the ground that he was not in employment on the succeeding day when increment became payable. In the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The scheme for payment of increment would have to be read as whole and one part of Article 151 of CSR cannot be read in isolation so as to frustrate the other part particularly when the other part creates right in the central government servant to receive increment. This would ensure that scheme of progressive appointment remains intact and the rights earned by a government servant remains protected and are not denied due to a fortuitous circumstance.” 20. Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, namely, the Gujarat [State of Gujarat v. Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 2522] High Court, the Madhya Pradesh [Yogendra Singh Bhadauria v. State of M.P., 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4654] High Court, the Orissa [Arun Kumar Biswal v. State of Odisha, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 2368] High Court and the Madras [P. Ayyamperumal v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37963] High Court. As observed hereinabove, to interpret 7 Regulation 40(1) of the Regulations in the manner in which the appellants have understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness and denying a government servant the benefit of annual increment which he has already earned while rendering specified period of service with good conduct and efficiency in the last preceding year. It would be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested on behalf of the appellants and the view [Principal Accountant-General, A.P. v. C. Subba Rao, 2005 SCC OnLine AP 47] taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is accepted, in that case it would tantamount to denying a government servant the annual increment which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day. 21. In the present case the word “accrue” should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and also in light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, respondent No. 4 is directed to grant regular annual increments to 8 the petitioner. The authority concerned is also directed to make payment of arrears of increments from the date of appointment till today. The arrears of the annual increments shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 10. For the next annual increment earned by the petitioner, the authorities are also directed to add annual increment from the month of August, 2026 in the salary of the petitioner regularly. 11. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay